AUSTIN — A federal appeals court late Wednesday refused to reinstate Texas’ abortion sonogram law while it is being appealed, leaving the law virtually unenforceable for the time being.

The law requiring women to have an ultrasound to see the fetal image, listen to a heartbeat and hear a detailed description of the sonogram results was slated to take effect Sept. 1, but U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks invalidated most of the law’s provisions on Aug. 30.

The law, which was touted by supporters as being one of the nation’s strictest anti-abortion statutes, was deemed unconstitutional by Sparks because it would force doctors to give patients information they don’t want and that isn’t medically relevant.

Attorney General Greg Abbott immediately appealed the decision, but a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans decided that Sparks’ injunction should remain in effect.

The appeals court opened the door for a full hearing on the injunction in January, but the state’s hope for a speedy reinstatement of the law was dashed by Wednesday’s ruling.

The suit is being fought by the Center for Reproductive Rights, which has argued the law is a radical intrusion on the doctor-patient relationship.

“This is a victory,” said Dallas attorney Susan Hays, who is working with the center. “We’re pleased the courts are following procedures and taking a sober look at the case.”

Proponents of the law have argued that it raises the standard of care for women by ensuring they have full access to medical information and can meet and talk with their doctor.

The law also mandates that women seeking abortions would have to wait 24 hours after seeing the sonogram, or hearing a full description of it, before returning for the procedure.

Sparks, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, stated in his ruling that Texas law already compels doctors to inform patients of the risks associated with abortions, the alternatives to abortion and the public and private assistance available for carrying pregnancies to term.

He wrote in his ruling, “There surely are limits to the government’s power to impose whatever message it desires, on whomever it likes, under any circumstances it desires.”